mrshowrules:Silly Jesus: A city determining paint color is not reasonable...and if your children are seeing it, then it is with your consent. Don't let them go where they will see such things if you don't want them to see them. You are trying to transfer the burden of parenting on to the business and the government. I know that's the liberal way, but shiat.

Where do you live? Do you have any idea the type of restrictions zoning other business operating rules impose in a city? There is some truly repressive shiat going on in main street USA.

Like it or not, the Government already has public decency laws making a parent's job easier that technically infringe on your personal liberties (publicmasturbation for instance). These laws already exist.

It is already illegal for a kid to go and watch a porno film in an x-rated theater or get a private dance in a strip-club. Do you think this Constitutes Government raising my kids for me? Obviously not.

So it is just a matter of where do you draw the line and new media types like violent video games. Whether the movie with mature content is in a theater, coin operated booth or an arcade machine? What difference does it make? If a law assists parents (tax payers) and doesn't really do fark all that affects you, why should you care? The video games creator isn't impacted. The First Amendment right isn't a right to have kids view your materiel without parent's consent.

mrshowrules:Hey, let's have stripper day at the park while we are at it. Obviously, a parent needs some controls/mechanisms to protect what there child is exposed to outside of their home. You have to draw the line somewhere. Requiring stores to conceal fashion magazines versus not allowing billboards of Sasha Grey getting a double-penetration on the side of the high way.

So where do you draw the line. Society has already determined (more or less) what constitutes mature content which a parent should be able to decide if they want their kid to see or not. Porn or a movie like Saw for instance won't permit a child under-aged to see it without parental consent.

Basically a law (I suggest is reasonable) seems to be an extension of that principle. If a child can't (without a parent) walk into a movie theater in a mall and watch this, they shouldn't be able to walk into a video game store or arcade without a parent and watch/play this. Why is that complicated or unreasonable?

A) The whole "violent videogames make violent children!" argument is completely bunk. There is no association between violent videogames causing violent behavior. Yes, violent people are attracted to violent video games, but non-violent people are just as attracted to them.

B) It is YOUR job as a parent to teach your kids what is right and what is wrong. Not the government. You can only shield your kid for so long. They WILL be exposed to violence in the media and in real life. They WILL be exposed to sex, drugs, and rock & roll. If your child is negatively affected by any of those things, that falls entirely into your lap as a parent.

I've played hundreds of violent video games, watched thousands of hours of violent TV shows/movies, read thousands of pages of violent books, yet have never been violent toward a single person. You can't explain that!

Farce-Side:Why are you guys so against banning violent video games? I mean, sure, it's not an end-all solution to violence but it's a start. Look at it this way: If banning violent video games saves just one child's life, why would you not want to do that? Why would you not make that sacrifice to ensure that child would live? If you can't get over your own selfish desires to own useless video games that do nothing but promote violent behavior in order to protect our children, then you are part of the problem. You have no right to own or play violent video games.